I admit that I was almost swayed myself. The 1994 OR vintage for Pinot Noir was exceptional, producing some very voluptuous wines. They never seemed to go into a dumb phase, continued to drink well until 1998, then seemed to all of a sudden fall apart. I have seen various notes of the premature death of the 1994 vintage -- I now believe that that report is itself premature. I think that the 1994 vintage was just shedding its baby fat. We opened a 1994 Starr Bert's Blend Pinot Noir tonight with Copper River Salmon and both were exceptional. The wine has dark fruit and tea aromas, with complex black cherry fruit, forest floor, very well integrated oak, crisp acidity, soft to moderate tannins, all packaged up to make a very lovely wine. This wine still has at least a couple of good years of good life left in it. This on top of a recent 94 Springhill Pinot and a St. Innocent Seven Hills, both not yet ready, leads me have to faith in my other 94s.

Good lord, Bucko. What "authorities" said the '94 vintage of Oregon PN was "dead?" I'm sure some are, but am just as sure that some will continue to improve over the next five, six years. Some are sure drinking great as we speak! Common sense says one should never make blanket statements about any region where decent wine growing is being done, and where the vintage is anywhere from average to way above average (and few would disagree that the '94s were generally exceptional for Oregon).

Oregon may slide past with '94 (only because they produce less and therefore have less still around), but Cali Reds from the same year are already feeling the heat. I don't know wether to drink these wines or spread them on toast. 95 had much better balance.
Anybody had any 94 Cali Chard lately? These are really scary.